[English]
EVIDENCE
[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, September 26, 2000
• 0904
[English]
The Chair (Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.)): We will call the meeting to order. I'd like to see more of our members here, but in any event the information is being recorded.
Welcome this morning, gentlemen. For committee members, we have representatives from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans here, basically to give a briefing on the September 17, 1999, Supreme Court decision on Marshall and the management of the fisheries in the Atlantic region. I'd like to welcome Jack Stagg, who is the Associate Deputy Minister. Mr. Stagg, perhaps you could introduce the people who are with you.
Before you start, I'd like to point out that it says on our committee agenda that the meeting will go from 9 a.m. to 12 noon. It's really 9 a.m. to 11 a.m.
I understand that you have a deck you want to present. We'll have that presented and then go to questions. Mr. Stagg.
Mr. Jack Stagg (Associate Deputy Minister, Fisheries and Oceans Canada): Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
With me is Mike Alexander, who works in our policy area in the department; David Bevan, who is a Director General in our fish management branch; and Howard Powles, who is with our scientific branch.
• 0905
As you mentioned, Mr. Chair, we do have a small deck
we would like to get through. Has that been
handed out?
The Chair: Yes, it has been passed around.
Mr. Jack Stagg: As the committee members know, on September 17 of last year the Marshall decision affirming the treaty right to fish, hunt, and gather commercially in pursuit of a moderate livelihood was passed down. Two months later the Supreme Court made a new decision by way of clarification, which underlines and affirms the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans' regulatory authority. It also contains some additional guidance on the scope of the treaty right and what would be termed or considered a justified infringement on that right.
As part of the first phase of the response from the federal government, the government authorized $160 million over 1999-2000 and 2000-01 primarily to accommodate new aboriginal access with minimal disruption to existing commercial fishers. Basically, in phase one, what we've said to first nations and to other Canadians represents a kind of first step toward providing what the court termed to be a moderate livelihood. Negotiations through the winter and early spring with 34 first nations, combined with a parallel voluntary licence retirement program, led us, we believe, to some considerable success.
The next phase of this program will involve a DIAND-led treaty implementation process, and Mr. Nault has spoken to the Atlantic Policy Congress in the Maritimes about this process.
When we weren't able to get agreements, we provided commercial access by way of tags to first nation communities, and food fishing activities were authorized to enable reasonable needs to be addressed.
As I mentioned, we believe we achieved considerable success over the winter and the spring. During that period we got 29 first nations to sign what we called interim fishing agreements. In addition to that, discussions are continuing with two communities, Afton and Acadia, where we think agreements may be possible. One community, Bear River, remains philosophically opposed to any agreement, but it's conducting its activities basically within, we feel, the law. Two communities, of course, Indian Brook and Burnt Church, which we know well, have refused to negotiate and have conducted what we term unauthorized fisheries.
Thus far in terms of those 29 agreements we've reached with communities, they've meant essentially the transfer of the equivalent of 190 inshore fishing enterprises; approximately 100 vessels and gear; training for new fishers, for which we've put aside approximately $2.4 million for courses; plus mentoring. In some cases when we purchased the enterprise, we asked vessel captains to stay on, and we paid the ship captains additional cash to stay on and teach first nation crews how to fish and how to use the vessel. We also put money toward economic diversification related to the fishery, including recreational fisheries, fisheries infrastructure, and ecotourism.
We believe those direct fishing benefits translate into about $20 million in landed value this year so far, or a net income amongst those people who would benefit of about $13 million. In addition to that, first nation communities are projecting hundreds of new jobs, both direct and indirect.
Where agreements have been concluded, new aboriginal entrants have generally integrated well into the existing commercial fishery, and there has been good compliance with commercial fishing rules.
I'd like to talk just very briefly about some of the benefits.
• 0910
I've been dealing with first nations myself for well
over 20 years, and I have never seen a program that
has as quickly created more jobs amongst first nations
people and generated the kind of economic wealth
locally as this program has.
For instance, the community of Millbrook secured the largest tuna in the entire Atlantic fleet last year. At Eskasoni, we have a band that's looking to employ up to 100 people as a result of fisheries access and related benefits. At Wagmatcook, the community is producing its own video about the benefits of its interim fishing agreement. Waycobah has acquired a large fish retail outlet. On St. Mary's Bay, we have a community near Fredericton that has set up a habitat aquaculture operation and a successful whale-watching business in the Bay of Fundy. The community of Kingsclear has established a commercial fishing centre on Grand Manan as a base of operations for its new sea urchin and lobster operations. The community of Red Bank used its interim fisheries agreement to diversify its economic base, with major expansion into recreational fishing and fishing-related tourism opportunities. Finally, Restigouche in Quebec employed almost 30 community fishermen on 18 vessels, fishing approximately 250 tonnes of snow crab, and is still, as we speak, out fishing shrimp.
In terms of the Burnt Church situation, Burnt Church members have fished for lobster since the Sparrow decision. This is the decision that provided for a food fishery for aboriginal peoples, and this provided for an aboriginal right to fish for food, social, and ceremonial purposes.
Prior to the Marshall decision, 13 commercial licences had been provided to fish in the spring by the aboriginal fishing strategy, the so-called AFS program, from DFO during the commercial season. Food fishing was also authorized for the late summer and early fall.
Immediately following Marshall, Burnt Church members initiated a commercial fishery in Miramichi Bay. Some access was authorized by the department in the immediate aftermath of the decision, and as we recall from last fall, conflict soon ensued between Burnt Church and local commercial fishers.
During phase one of the negotiations, where we began talking to, or tried to talk to, all of the communities through the winter, spring, and early summer, Burnt Church leadership was consistently unavailable, or refused to meet to discuss an interim agreement. Again, that's despite efforts by our minister, our chief federal representative James MacKenzie, and departmental staff.
We saw the difficulties around negotiations, or lack thereof, as, first, the positions on claims of sovereignty by the Burnt Church community, and secondly, the Burnt Church fishing plan, which I'll speak of in more detail in a couple of minutes.
In terms of fishing benefits, the Burnt Church First Nation was offered a package that we felt was worth more than $5 million. It included commercial access to a variety of species, including lobster. They were to receive four additional licences on top of the 13 that they were already fishing, 75 tonnes of crab, and food access to a number of species, including lobster. We set the limit there at 40,000 pounds. We felt that 40 traps would be able to catch 40,000 pounds during the two months they would be fishing. We calculated that this would have provided in the neighbourhood of 30 pounds of lobster for each man, woman, and child within the community.
We promised some vessels and equipment and funding for infrastructure amounting to some $2.3 million in and around the community.
When we were not able to secure an agreement, commercial access to lobster, crab, and other species was issued by us by transferring tags. In addition, food access was provided—as I mentioned, 40 tags for 40 traps to fish during the fall season.
Members of the Burnt Church First Nation developed a community management plan that was ratified by the chief and council in late August, which unilaterally authorized substantially increased commercial fishing in the fall period. The fishing plan, we believe, is not biologically sustainable and would adversely and substantially impact on regular commercial fishing this coming spring.
• 0915
Our biologists who looked at this said essentially
that each trap set in the fall would be the equivalent
of eight traps set during the spring fishery. So 5,400
traps set in the fall would come out somewhere
equivalent to 40,000 traps that might be set in a
spring fishery. We felt that the fishery in Miramichi
Bay could not sustain that kind of pressure for very
long.
We had a mediation phase. On September 11 the Honourable Bob Rae was named as mediator in the situation. Mr. Rae's name came from a list of people submitted by Burnt Church First Nation as one of the people acceptable to them to mediate the dispute. He held numerous meetings with Burnt Church. Most of this was public; it was on television. Most of us watched this as it unfolded. He held the meetings with Burnt Church, DFO, and non-native commercial fishers over eight days, but was unsuccessful in mediating a settlement to the situation.
On the fishery, scientific evidence collected in previous years and through enforcement efforts this summer has resulted in evidence that the first nations fishing plan, we believe, is detrimental to the resource. As a result, the food, social, and ceremonial fishery of the Miramichi Bay area of lobster fishing area 23 was closed last Friday, September 22, 2000, basically to all fishing.
Traps are being removed from the area by DFO staff. We had heard from the community a claim of some 600 traps over the last two or three weeks. Since early Friday morning we've taken out approximately 1,300 traps, a large majority of these traps being marked with Burnt Church First Nation tags. We have now taken out fairly close to 4,000 illegal traps during the summer, since early August when fishing first began.
The other community that we do not have an agreement with where there has been difficulty is the Indian Brook community. The Indian Brook community filed for a judicial review application, in essence to prevent DFO from any enforcement or further enforcement on their traps.
This season, in addition to other species, the Indian Brook First Nation was provided with ten commercial lobster fishing licences to be fished during the commercial lobster season. They also had access during the summer, where the area was closed to commercial fishing. For food, social, and ceremonial purposes we provided 35 traps, to a maximum catch of 40,000 pounds, again to be fished communally.
The Indian Brook First Nation has been conducting unauthorized commercial lobster fishing in St. Mary's Bay this summer, although fishing effort has been moderate.
The Indian Brook First Nation, as I mentioned, commenced an application in the Federal Court for a judicial review, questioning the validity of the decision of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to restrict fishing during the summer—again where it was closed to commercial fishing—to fishing for food, social, and ceremonial purposes only. It also challenged our ability to restrict the effort to 35 traps or 40,000 pounds.
In connection with the judicial review, Indian Brook asked the court for an interim injunction to prevent DFO from taking enforcement action against their fishers. Indian Brook's fishing plan allows for 800 traps to be used during the summer period, again when the commercial fishing season is closed. The court rejected the application for an interlocutory injunction on September 21 and confirmed that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans can enforce the Fisheries Act and regulations pending the final decision in the main application. Again, that was for a judicial review of the facts.
We are monitoring Indian Brook fishing activity and we are taking enforcement action as we see it is warranted.
Just very briefly looking ahead, phase one, as I said, of our Marshall response is now nearing completion. Again, we've achieved 29 out of 34 agreements. We have issues to settle, of course, with Indian Brook and Burnt Church. We have two other agreements that we say are pending.
In phase two we would hope to build on the progress that we realized this year: additional fishing access toward the fulfillment of a moderate livelihood; negotiations toward multi-year agreements to facilitate a stable, planning environment for both aboriginal and non-aboriginal fishers; continuation of a voluntary licence retirement, closely coordinated with DIAND's planned activities for treaty implementation and aboriginal rights negotiations; emphasis on capacity building, both fishing and fisheries management; emphasis on accommodating aboriginal aspirations for an increased role in fisheries management, and promoting cooperative management relations between aboriginal and non-aboriginal fishers; and finally, integration of aboriginals into commercial consultative and advisory processes that we have set up or that have been set up in the fishing industry generally.
• 0920
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Stagg. Do any witnesses have anything to add before we go to questions? Okay.
Before we do go to questions, I have two housekeeping matters to deal with, and you have the motions before you. The steering committee met the other day relative to completing our aquaculture study. The two motions are these, and I'd like to deal with them and get them out of the way.
The first motion is that the committee seek an order of reference from the House of Commons to travel to the Faroe Islands, Norway, and Scotland, from November 25 to December 7, 2000, to continue their comprehensive study in aquaculture, and that the said committee be composed of two Alliance members, one Bloc Québécois member, one NDP member, one Conservative member, five Liberals, and the necessary staff to accompany the committee.
Do I have a mover for that motion? Peter Stoffer. Seconded by Marcel Proulx. Any discussion? Yvan.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Iles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, BQ): I see here on the French copy that the committee is scheduled to travel to France, Norway and Scotland. In the translation and in the other English documents, the reference is to the Faeroe Islands, not France.
[English]
The Chair: France should be removed and replaced with Faroe Islands. We were advised following our discussion the other day, Yvan, that there is a fair bit of deep-sea fishery—a fin fishery—off the Faroe Islands and that is what we should look at to see the best technology.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier: Fine. When I mentioned going to France, I was thinking about a television program which focused on contained aquaculture systems. Am I to understand that such a system is in place in the Faeroe Islands or should we be looking at France? I had asked that we view the tape of that particular French program, so that we could go and see first hand this aquaculture operation. That's why I am anxious to go to France. It's not necessarily because of the wine, Mr. Chairman.
[English]
The Chair: We'll have to check it out, Mr. Bernier, but I would assume it would be possible to get a copy of the videotape without having to go to France to do it. We weren't looking at sites in France per se. It could have been done on the way through, but I'm told by the people who work in the aquaculture industry that the cutting-edge technology is in the Faroe Islands. What those of us who were over to Norway and Scotland learned is that Norway is far in advance of where we are in aquaculture. Scotland is now somewhat behind. So we would cover all bases, but we'll make every effort to see if we can get that videotape.
(Motion agreed to)
The Chair: The second motion—and France is replaced by Faroe Islands—is that the chair be authorized to approve the travel budget to Faroe Islands, Norway, and Scotland and present the said budget to the budget liaison subcommittee.
• 0925
It is moved by Paul and seconded
by Peter.
(Motion agreed to)
The Chair: Mr. Cummins, I assume you might have some questions. You have 10 minutes.
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Canadian Alliance): I have a couple here and there, I guess. Thank you very much.
I just have to comment, Mr. Stagg, that your presentation talks about creating jobs, and the reality is you're not creating anything. You may be transferring jobs from one community to another, but you're not creating jobs.
You also suggested that you had never seen so many jobs created from a government initiative. I'm just wondering whether the jobs created are coming about as a result of the government's failing to enforce the law, or were those jobs you're talking about being created strictly those jobs that had to do with the capture of quantities of product within the limits prescribed by government?
The Chair: Mr. Stagg.
Mr. Jack Stagg: Mr. Chairman, I realize we're not in effect creating net additional jobs here, that we are, as the honourable member has said, transferring opportunities, I guess, from traditional fishers over to those people who have not had an opportunity in the past to do that. We were blessed, I think, at the beginning of this process with a number of commercial fishers, many of whom were older, who wanted to leave the business and were able to secure a fair market value for their licences. These licences went over to first nations fishers. And of course additional money went into the Maritimes generally, and certainly into small communities, as a result of the capital or financial transfer to those traditional fishers who were transferring their licences to first nations.
When I talked about the creation of jobs, Mr. Chairman, I was talking about the creation of jobs amongst first nations communities. These are real jobs. They may be transferred jobs, but they're real jobs, and they went into communities that have, I think, according to the last survey, a better than 90% unemployment rate. So when I say that jobs were created, I think the honourable member is right, we're not creating many net additional jobs here, but we are creating jobs amongst the poorest of the communities in the Maritimes.
The Chair: Mr. Cummins.
Mr. John Cummins: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The curiously named Jim Jones, a DFO official in the Maritimes, suggested that the actual catch to September 15, 2000, in Miramichi was 165,000 pounds. Mr. Powles, do you accept that number?
Mr. Howard Powles (Director, Fisheries Research Branch, Fisheries and Oceans Science Directorate, Fisheries and Oceans Canada): Yes. That number is based on estimates of catch per trap and on the number of traps out there, but we do feel that's an accurate estimate, and if anything, it may be a bit on the low side.
Mr. John Cummins: Is that time of year, from the first of August to September 15, a productive time of the year in Miramichi Bay?
Mr. Howard Powles: For lobsters, yes, it is, sir. The lobsters move inshore in the summertime. The waters are warmer, of course, so they're more active, and in addition, they're feeding. Summer is the moulting period so they're feeding after the moult; they're hungry and they're easily trapped at that time. Those are the reasons, as Mr. Stagg said, for the catch rates being higher in this late summer to fall period than in the spring.
Mr. John Cummins: Do you have any idea what number of traps that figure was based on?
Mr. Howard Powles: Yes, I have that written down here somewhere. The total number of trap days that's based on is about 30,000; it's 29,979.
Mr. John Cummins: What is that again?
Mr. Howard Powles: Around 30,000 trap days. That's a trap hauled for a day.
Mr. John Cummins: You're talking about 45 days, so 30,000 trap days in 45 days—
Mr. Howard Powles: Yes. That would come out to how many traps? That would be—
Mr. John Cummins: What, six hundred and some?
• 0930
Mr. Howard Powles: Up to September 15 it would be 30,000 divided by 45 days.
Mr. John Cummins: It would be 600 or 700.
Mr. Howard Powles: Yes. I can't do this in my head.
Mr. John Cummins: We cancel zeros, I think.
Mr. Howard Powles: It's about 650.
Mr. John Cummins: That would be a more productive time. After the middle of September lobsters start moving out of the bay, and things are not as productive.
Mr. Howard Powles: Yes, that's right.
Mr. John Cummins: Now, Mr. Chamut was prepared to tell us at committee that he estimated that last year between September 17 and October 10, 190,000 pounds of lobster was harvested in the Burnt Church area. Basically that's about a three-week period, and we had 190,000 pounds of lobster. Do you have any idea what the trap effort was then?
Mr. Howard Powles: No, I'm not familiar with that estimate.
Mr. John Cummins: The traps were put in the water, of course, immediately after the Marshall decision.
If you look at 190,000 pounds at a time of declining stocks and you look at your 165,000 pounds at the most productive time in the fishery, do you not think your 165,000 pounds might be a little out of whack?
Mr. Howard Powles: As I said, we tried to make this an accurate estimate. We may have underestimated the total catches a little bit, but we preferred to get an accurate estimate.
Mr. John Cummins: I understand that. Thank you.
Lobster landings in LFA 23 in 1993 were listed at about 9.7 million pounds. In 1999 they were down to 7.8 million pounds, which is 81% of 1993's. For the year 2000, according to the figures I have, the landings are estimated to be 76% of 1993's. Now, that's basically a serious decline, I think, in anyone's estimation.
Last year Mr. Chamut was before the committee, and one of his briefing notes said “As long as fishers observe those requirements”—and the requirements were that they stick to the plan, of course—“and we enforce to ensure they do, conservation needs will be satisfied.”
Do you think the department is actually living up to its mandate here when you look at the decline in catch from 1993 to the year 2000 and you consider Mr. Chamut's comments that as long as fishers observe these requirements—those requirements being sticking to the regulations—and the department enforces the law to ensure they do, conservation needs will be satisfied? Is the department fulfilling its mandate?
Mr. Jack Stagg: Let me answer that. In fact, as I understand it, fishers within that area, Miramichi Bay, have voluntarily restrained themselves and have reduced the number of traps per licence, I think, over the past few years—
Mr. John Cummins: From 375 to 300.
Mr. Jack Stagg: The licences—
Mr. John Cummins: Increased carapace size.
Mr. Jack Stagg: Increased carapace size. The licences we offered Burnt Church in that area to fish commercially were licences we obtained from existing fishers. So we were not going to add this spring through our plan with Burnt Church any additional fishing pressure in the commercial season. As you know, in the food fishery season we had authorized some 40 traps, which we felt would satisfy the community's interest in terms of food, social, and ceremonial fish. We believe that approach was consistent with good conservation in the bay and with sustaining the lobster fishery in Miramichi.
Mr. John Cummins: But in 1998 you allowed for 300,000 pounds to be harvested for food, social, and ceremonial purposes by 1,200 people. In 1999 you reduced that to 125,000. Then you had a little bit of poaching activity, you might call it, after the Marshall decision that increased the catch by 190,000 pounds, which is your estimate. This year you cut it back again to 40,000 pounds, I think because you feared probably that stocks were in decline. And by your own estimates, up to September 15 there was 165,000 pounds caught—not 40,000 pounds, but 165,000 pounds. So your failure to enforce the regulations and your failure to stick to your guns when you established these quotas is hurting the stocks, is it not?
• 0935
Mr. Jack Stagg: I think there may be Canadians who wish that we were more precipitous than we were in terms of our enforcement earlier on. We tried to take an approach that we thought would have got us an interim agreement. Many Canadians felt we enforced too much and that we were risking Canadians' lives on both sides of this dispute. In fairness, I think we tried to walk that line between those various groups who were interested in catching more lobster out of the bay, in an effort to get an agreement and keep peace on the water. So that was our judgment, and we felt we carried that mandate out as well as we could.
The Chair: We'll come back to you, John, if there's time.
Mr. Bernier. Five minutes, Mr. Bernier.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier: I'll be brief, Mr. Chairman. Sirs, I note the following in point 4 on the first page of the document you submitted to us this morning:
For the benefit of the members present, could you define the expression “moderate livelihood” for us, since phase I represents a first step toward this?
[English]
Mr. Jack Stagg: I think there are a number of ways of calculating a moderate livelihood. I don't think we would get consensus even of the members in this room on what a moderate livelihood is. What we do know is that incomes are very low among those communities, and this will be a way in which we can raise those incomes.
Before we finish in the next phase in the next few years, we are going to have to come to some determination of what a real moderate livelihood is. We know that the moderate livelihood is something above the poverty line; but as the court decision has said, it's not something one has as an order from the fishery to provide or obtain luxuries. So we have not stuck on a specific number here, but we do know that in the next year or two we will be working toward raising incomes in those communities from the fishing industry, we hope fairly substantially.
The Chair: Mr. Bernier.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier: Mr. Chairman, may I remind people that $160 million has been spent, that numerous licenses have been issued and that interim agreements have been reached. I'd like to know if there is an interim definition of “moderate livelihood”, because we're taking Canada in a certain direction. I'd appreciate a definition of the term. As things now stand, I don't see the beginning of any definition in the minister's response.
[English]
Mr. Jack Stagg: No, you will not hear a beginning of a definition, because we do not have a definition of a moderate livelihood. Again, we've done some statistical work on it. One might ask oneself, is moderate livelihood an average income in Canada; is it an average income for the Maritimes; should it reflect an average income within the local community where we're supplying licenses? What we do know, though, is in fact we have a fairly long way to go in many of those communities to reach the basic poverty line. So while we have to come to some determination on a moderate livelihood level for each of those circumstances, each community, we feel that we don't necessarily have to establish that line right now.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier: I understand, but I would still like to know one thing, for lack of a definition of “moderate livelihood”. In view of your responsibilities, what percentage of this “moderate livelihood” must be derived from fishing? Are we talking about 10 per cent? Or is it 25 per cent or 50 per cent? The Marshall decision made mention not only of fishing.
• 0940
[English]
Mr. Jack Stagg: We know that fisheries will probably produce a significant amount of that moderate livelihood. There is some question, I understand, around whether or not any timber operations might add to that. There's a question about whether or not berry gathering and other traditional activities such as hunting might add something. We feel that fish being commercially catchable and there being a market for it will probably end up providing a substantial amount toward that moderate livelihood, there's no question.
The Chair: Mr. Bernier, this will be the last question for this round.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier: Then I will set the stage for the next round, Mr. Chairman. Further on—I believe it's one page 4—you refer to the Burnt Church dispute and to the negotiation difficulties. You state that positions on claims of sovereignty by the Burnt Church nation constitute one difficulty. You go on to say that the Burnt Church fishing plan is not biologically sustainable and could adversely impact the commercial spring fishery.
Given the Burnt Church positions, how does Fisheries and Oceans plan to keep the lines of communication with Burnt Church open, given that we are dealing with a government-to-government stance and that DFO biologists were the ones who evaluated the Burnt Church fishing plan? Without actually arguing which position is sound and which is not—each side has its own perception—do you personally feel that we as a government would agree to having our actions in a common zone dictated to us by the United States? How are disputes between two countries settled? That is what I would like to know.
[English]
Mr. Jack Stagg: In terms of our dealings with Burnt Church, since the very beginning we said that notwithstanding that there were some elements certainly in the Burnt Church fishing plan that we were not able to live with, there were some elements in the plan that we thought we could begin discussions around. In fact, in every correspondence from the minister and officials we underline and emphasize even now our willingness to sit down and try to work through an interim fishing plan and to begin talking about both the longer-term process for Burnt Church and their engagement in that and fishing opportunities for next year. So we ourselves have not closed the door whatsoever. We think there are some things in the fishing plan from Burnt Church that we perhaps could begin discussions around. There are other elements, as I mentioned earlier, that we thought would give us a great deal of trouble. Their fishing effort limits, we believe, are not sustainable in the area. But again, we've left the door open, and the minister has left the door open. We've always said that we're willing to sit down and talk reasonably, and that's how we've left it.
The Chair: Before I turn to Paul, just on that point, the Burnt Church fishing plan, you indicated during your presentation that there were 17 commercial licences allocated and 75 tonnes of snow crab, etc. When they could have utilized those licences and caught that crab in the legal season that wasn't the food fishery, did they utilize that to the full extent? Did Burnt Church utilize what they could have legally to the full extent possible?
Mr. Jack Stagg: My understanding, Mr. Chairman, is that they did not use the additional four licences we provided on top of the thirteen they already had, in part over the issue, I think, that they would have had to accept our tags on those four licences and they were not willing to do that. On the crab fishery I believe they fished 40 tonnes.
The Chair: So the bottom line is that they didn't take the economic opportunity to utilize the goodwill of the nation to fish during the legal fishing season.
Mr. Jack Stagg: They did partially, Mr. Chairman, in terms of the crab fishery, but they did not accept or use the licences we were prepared to transfer.
The Chair: Mr. Steckle.
• 0945
Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.): Good morning. Thank you for appearing. Any time we have departmental officials appearing before us we need to ask some very forthright questions.
One of the questions, of course, that is on the minds of politicians is, what is the cost of all of this? I would like to know, for the committee's sake and for those who are listening to this this morning, what has been the cost to government of the Marshall decision in terms of the jobs, the agreements that have been settled... basically the cost of that decision to this time?
Mr. Jack Stagg: Of course, we received $160 million in the first phase of this operation, and I believe we've spent or have committed to date approximately $111,679,000.
The Chair: That's pretty approximate.
Mr. Jack Stagg: This is obviously a rough estimate, but we have spent approximately $110 million, most of that through acquired access of fisheries opportunities for first nations. We also have purchased, I think, somewhere in the neighbourhood of 100 vessels for those enterprises in order to go fishing.
On the crab alone, my understanding is that we have purchased a quantity of somewhere around $20 million worth of access for crab.
Mr. Paul Steckle: Do you anticipate that the $160 million will be adequate to bring this to a conclusion?
Mr. Jack Stagg: My understanding is that the $160 million will make a very good start. As a result of our first year's foray into this, we're now coming down to the point of looking to see what it will take in order for the fishing component to realize a moderate livelihood. We have not done those calculations as yet. We're looking carefully to see what we accomplish with the $160 million and basically taking it from there.
Mr. Paul Steckle: The question that was raised in earlier travel we did in terms of licences... We have bought the licences. Who owns the licences now? Does the government continue to own the licences and they're leased to the native communities?
Mr. Jack Stagg: My understanding is that those licences are transferred to the community communally. Those are communal rights to fish. They're not rights for individuals to fish, although individuals prosecute those rights. These are transferred in ownership to the community itself.
Mr. Paul Steckle: This is not the response I had from an earlier question in our travels of about six or eight months ago. It doesn't surprise me, perhaps. I guess the reason I ask that is because in the past these licences have fallen into the hands of individuals and they then become the property of that individual. I believe it is our intent as a government to make sure these communities communally benefit from the benefits of the resource.
I guess one would have to question... As we share the wealth of the resource, it would certainly be the hope of this committee, I would trust, and the government, that a community at large, not individuals, would benefit from the resource in terms of its commercial value. How is that carried out so that it doesn't fall into the hands of a few people? Obviously, the interest we have in this is so that as many people as possible share the resource.
Mr. Jack Stagg: We share your concern around that, and what we put into each of the interim fishing agreements was a provision that required the publication of all the revenues generated by those individual commercial and communal licences. Obviously, individuals have to use those licences in order to fish, but through those provisions in the agreement we have encouraged community sharing of the revenues. We've asked all the revenues to be published in the community that were generated from those licences transferred from us.
Mr. Paul Steckle: Isn't it also in our interest in the long term to ensure that these communities come up to a standard that is comparable to the rest of society? As that wealth is shared and as that community becomes more adapted to the norm in terms of their economic wealth, do you see that in some way having an impact in terms of what government has to do or is expected to do for native communities across this country?
• 0950
Mr. Jack Stagg: I can't comment on whether or not this is the way one should see economic development and wealth creation in all the native communities. Of course, I think it's probably the object of those communities outside the Marshall area to create wealth, to do better, to create jobs in many rural areas. I think it's probably an objective of all of us to see first nations communities do better generally in the country. I don't think there's any question.
Whether or not every community can benefit in a similar way from a similar situation... There's only one Marshall decision and it affects only so many beneficiaries. That's who we're dealing with of course now in the east. I think there are lots of opportunities. The Minister of Indian Affairs is finding ways, or trying to find ways, of boosting economic development and wealth creation in other communities across the country.
Mr. Paul Steckle: Since there are two ministers involved with native affairs—in this particular case we're talking about Fisheries and Oceans as well as DIAND—what level of cooperation do you see on the kinds of initiatives we're trying to put forward? Do we see full cooperation between these two ministers, or do we find ourselves not at the cooperative level we ought to be?
Mr. Jack Stagg: I think there's a very good level of cooperation. As we move forward from this phase one we have to see a larger-term process that looks at all of the treaty, not just the fishing provisions, and looks at how we will deal with aboriginal rights in the Maritimes beyond the Marshall decision alone.
So not only is cooperation expected, but I think cooperation is valued and in fact is going on. We need that cooperation in order to plan into the future, there's no question.
Mr. Paul Steckle: Does that level of cooperation currently exist in Burnt Church in terms of how we're resolving taking out traps in the water?
Mr. Jack Stagg: I believe it is. I think the Minister of Indian Affairs is very supportive of the way in which my minister has handled this.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Steckle.
Mr. Cummins, you have five minutes.
Mr. John Cummins: I'm sure glad the Minister of Indian Affairs is supportive of the way the minister has handled this because I haven't talked to too many fishermen on the east coast who are. I guess we could get into that, or we could get into individual versus communal ownership.
But before I do, I want to comment on something Mr. Stagg said. He was talking about the interim agreements and wouldn't life be wonderful if we had interim agreements across the Maritimes. The fact of the matter is, Mr. Stagg, and you're fully aware, that even when interim agreements are in place, the regulations are not being adhered to. Let's look at Malpeque Bay. There was a 20,000-pound quota there, and probably, by DFO estimates, 40,000 pounds have been taken out of the water. But there's been no enforcement, or very little enforcement. Is that not correct?
Mr. David Bevan (Director General, Resource Management Directorate, Fisheries and Oceans Canada): There's been monitoring of the catches in Malpeque Bay. From the information we have there's been compliance. I understand there are differing views from differing people. We have to go with what we have in terms of the information we can support and have confidence in. We can't go on rumours or opinions.
Mr. John Cummins: Compliance requires that there's a DFO tag on every trap, does it not, Mr. Bevan?
Mr. David Bevan: Yes, it does.
Mr. John Cummins: Yes. Well, I'm not particularly expert in the mechanics of lobster fishing, but I was on Malpeque Bay a few weeks ago—about three weeks ago—in the company of some fishermen, and we pulled up 15 or 20 traps. Not one of them had a DFO tag on it. They were loaded with lobster. I think essentially you guys have given up on enforcement in Malpeque Bay, and in St. Mary's Bay as well. In fact, with Lennox Island and Malpeque Bay there is no monitoring, and DFO simply calls the band office now and asks what was the catch yesterday. Isn't that correct?
Mr. David Bevan: I can say for sure that we have raised St. Mary's Bay. I'm quite puzzled with that kind of comment in view of the kind of enforcement action that has been taken there continuously all season long.
Mr. John Cummins: Where is that?
• 0955
Mr. David Bevan: In St. Mary's Bay. That's quite puzzling in view of the number of arrests that have been made, the number of vessels and traps seized, etc. It has been very public what kind of action has been taken.
Mr. John Cummins: You have taken action, but there's no tracking of catches, which is what I'm told.
Mr. David Bevan: That's correct. We have set the effort by using trap days again. We had a calculation conducted as to how much a trap would catch in that time in that area over the course of the summer, and the quota was set, and the number of traps allowed to be used to catch that quota was set. We believe that if those traps are limited to the 35, as they are being limited now, the catch will be within the limits. The—
Mr. John Cummins: But the estimate of traps varies widely. There are legal traps out there. I've seen them myself, and others tell me they're legal traps. I don't think you have a clear estimate of how many traps are in the water, and you're obviously not monitoring what comes ashore, are you?
Mr. David Bevan: We don't monitor the catches. We do monitor the traps. We seize traps that are out there without DFO tags and have been doing so all summer long and will continue to do so. We're limiting the number of traps. That doesn't guarantee that there is not an untagged trap out there, but—
Mr. John Cummins: But there are lots of them. There's not just one. I went out on a sunny afternoon, and there was no difficulty. Every trap that was pulled was without a tag. There was not a tag on a trap.
Mr. David Bevan: There have always been illegal activities. We have always had enforcement. We've had a very high level of enforcement, obviously, in these areas and have been pulling traps that have been unmarked.
Mr. John Cummins: Is it a high level of enforcement if you set a quota at 40,000 pounds and by your own admission the catch is over 300,000 pounds?
Mr. David Bevan: You're talking there about Burnt Church, I believe.
Mr. John Cummins: Yes.
Mr. David Bevan: I can assure you that—
Mr. John Cummins: Is it a high level of enforcement when the quota is doubled in Malpeque Bay or when you're not actually recording what comes ashore in St. Mary's Bay? Is that a high level of enforcement?
Mr. David Bevan: With regard to St. Mary's Bay, I think you've seen the kind of effort that has been put in there. You've seen the action we've taken. We have limited the number of traps in that area by taking out the unmarked traps.
In Burnt Church we've had a number of enforcement actions. We have seized a little over 4,000 traps in a number of operations. We are in the process of an operation. Obviously, we are enforcing. There has been concerted effort in the Burnt Church area.
Mr. John Cummins: You have enforced in spurts, Mr. Bevan. There has been no consistent enforcement. Consistent enforcement says that on the first day when over 40 traps were laid, the extras would have been pulled out. It didn't happen. Every once in a while you've gone out over the last six weeks or so and pulled a few traps. Then there has been quiet on the water, so to speak, simply because there hasn't been an enforcement presence.
Mr. David Bevan: We had a number of enforcement operations in August. When mediation started, in order to give mediation a chance, there was a pause. While there had been some enforcement conducted even while mediation was on, it was less intense, until it became clear that the first nation was not in fact reducing traps, as had been indicated by the mediator, but was increasing them, and then we closed the fishery—
Mr. John Cummins: But that was obvious to everybody long before the—
Mr. David Bevan: —and started removing the traps.
The Chair: Your time is up, and I'm going to turn to Mr. Stoffer.
Go ahead and conclude, Mr. Bevan.
Mr. David Bevan: So we closed the fishery and removed the traps. I think it's clear that there has been enforcement action.
The Chair: Peter, before you come in, I do want to make a point, Mr. Bevan, on Malpeque Bay. It is in my riding, and these are very sensitive bays. In my own view, in terms of meeting fishermen and a number of others in the area and talking to a lot of DFO officers and the management of DFO in P.E.I., I don't think there's any question about it in terms of the number of traps the fishermen have caught. What John says is in fact true. Quite a number of traps were pulled by fishermen.
I think part of the problem there is that we don't have enough enforcement officers in P.E.I. Additional officers were added this year, but with the situation in Burnt Church, officers left other areas to participate in that particular operation, which opened up areas for poaching, not necessarily by the native community but by all communities, and that's what has been happening in Malpeque Bay.
• 1000
So there is, in my view, a very definite
need to increase the number of enforcement officers on
the water in all areas. That's where the problem is.
It's a shortage of resources, I think. I do feel
somewhat for these fisheries officers who were not
getting holiday time. They're certainly under a lot of
stress and strain due to a shortage of manpower at the
local level.
Mr. Stoffer.
Mr. Jack Stagg: Mr. Chairman, could I just add something?
The Chair: Yes.
Mr. Jack Stagg: In terms of our consistency of enforcement, in the Burnt Church situation we have been very consistent and regular. I think the fishery started around the 7th or 8th. On August 13 and 14 we removed 820 traps; on August 21 and 22, 572 traps; and on August 28 and 29, 1,298 traps.
Then there was a lull. As David has said, we were trying to establish a mediation process. We did establish a mediation process. The mediation process took its course without success.
Then on September 21 and 22 we removed a further 113 traps. Just over this past weekend we removed somewhere in the neighbourhood of a further 1,200 traps. So we're looking in total, I think, Mr. Chairman, at around 4,000 traps almost weekly in terms of our diligence with the unmarked traps.
The Chair: But my point, Mr. Stagg, is yes, that's at Burnt Church, but as a result of that operation in Burnt Church, you end up by necessity, I think, shorting some other areas. One of those areas that I believe was shorted was Malpeque Bay, which is sensitive as well. It opens up poaching for other areas. I'm not saying it's the native community that's doing that poaching, but there is some happening.
Mr. Stoffer.
Mr. John Cummins: Mr. Chairman, I think the point is that it's not how many were removed but how many remain in the water. Isn't that the issue?
The Chair: Currently, yes.
Mr. Stoffer.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for remembering us down on this side of the table.
The Chair: I'm just going by the established list, Mr. Stoffer.
Mr. Peter Stoffer: Speaking of poverty, as we were before, Mr. Fred Sears wants me to publicly state that Mr. Easter was a big help in getting him down from the mast of the Bluenose the other day. So, Mr. Easter, thank you very much from Mr. Sears.
My question, Mr. Stagg, is quite simple: does DFO or the Government of Canada consider the Burnt Church fishery by aboriginals to be an illegal fishery as we speak?
Mr. Jack Stagg: We considered all the traps in there up until September 22 that were unmarked to be illegal traps. After the 21st, when we closed the fishery—
Mr. Peter Stoffer: I only have five minutes, sir. Just a yes or no would have been appropriate.
Mr. Jack Stagg: All of the traps.
Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you.
If that's the case, those lobsters are being sold. We know they're being sold off the backs of trucks and into other trucks and being distributed throughout Maine, New England, central Canada, or other places. Why doesn't the federal government, instead of ramming boats, work with the provincial authorities and stop the selling and buying of those lobsters? If you consider them to be illegally caught lobsters, why don't you stop the selling and buying of those lobsters?
Mr. Jack Stagg: The tracing of a lobster out of the fishery and to find that lobster to be an illegal lobster sold to a processor is a very difficult task.
Mr. Peter Stoffer: I find it absolutely unbelievable that you can make that statement.
Mr. Jack Stagg: We have a commercial fishery going on right now next door, Mr. Stoffer, and those commercial lobsters find their way into processors in the same way as the lobsters that are caught in Miramichi Bay find their way to processors.
Mr. Peter Stoffer: Do you mean to tell me that with all the resources of the federal government you can't track where 165,000 pounds of lobsters are going? Is that what you're saying?
Mr. Jack Stagg: I'm not saying we can't do it. I'm saying it's a very, very difficult task to prosecute.
The Chair: Mr. Bevan, you wanted in.
Mr. David Bevan: We've obviously been involved in the past in tracking lobsters from closed areas. We've actually had lobsters caught by fishery officers, marked, put back in the water, caught by poachers or by people in the food fisheries, and then taken to fish processing plants. That is not enough to satisfy the judges. We have to be able to demonstrate that there was actually an exchange of money and that it wasn't something that was used for storage, transport, or what have you. So the onus of proof is very, very high. We have to demonstrate that the lobster was caught illegally, that this particular lobster was transported, and that there was a commercial transaction with the exchange of money being proven by us. So it's very difficult.
• 1005
We closed the food fishery, in addition
to conservation, in Miramichi Bay to make it
simpler. There's no excuse now for those lobsters
being transported out of Burnt Church to commercial
trade, and we can now have a lot better success at that
particular type of enforcement.
Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you very much for that.
You say you've taken all these traps out in St. Mary's Bay. You've taken the boats and everything. What do you plan to do with those traps when this is all said and done?
Mr. David Bevan: That's up to the courts.
Mr. Peter Stoffer: So they're in a warehouse right now, or something like that.
Mr. David Bevan: Yes.
Mr. Peter Stoffer: I don't believe anyone in Canada honestly believes for a second that DFO can manage the fisheries on their own.
You indicated earlier that you anticipate that aboriginal people will be part of the management process, or part of that process, as we have in other areas—area 24 crab fisheries and Sambro fisheries. Are you saying DFO is possibly looking towards a more community-based cooperative co-management agreement with aboriginal and non-aboriginal communities in the future management of the fisheries?
Mr. Jack Stagg: Yes, we are.
Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you.
The Chair: Last question.
Mr. Peter Stoffer: Very good. Thank you.
We all know that this decision, according to aboriginal communities and the bands... and the Government of Canada is saying that this Marshall decision applies only to status aboriginals on reserves. Yet Donald Marshall was living off reserve at the time.
The non-status aboriginal communities in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia are now proceeding through the courts indicating that the Marshall decision applies to them as well. The government was completely out to lunch last year when this decision was coming down the pipe. They had fair warning, ample warning, that this decision was going to go in favour of the aboriginal community, and they sat back and did nothing about it. The decision came down and created chaos. What is the government prepared to do, or what are they going to do, to offset the concerns of future court cases by non-status aboriginals when it relates to Marshall?
The Chair: A question, Peter, not a speech.
Mr. Jack Stagg: We have had a number of things already. In fact, with the three provincially based non-status groups this year, we have increased their ability to catch lobster under the aboriginal fishing strategy. They have been under this aboriginal fishing strategy since 1992. So they do indeed have an opportunity, on the basis of their membership in those organizations, to catch lobster now. In fact, this year we made more lobster available to those three organizations. We have agreements with each one of them in each of the provinces now.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Stoffer and Mr. Stagg.
Mr. Steckle.
Mr. Paul Steckle: I have one question, and I'd like a good response to this because I think it's the underlying question that all Canadians have.
There is this view in this country that there are two laws in this land. All of us agree that there were inequities, and still are, that needed to be corrected in terms of the fairness of the catch of species or the sharing of wealth, of resources. Would you agree that the department's position is, and should be, that the law should prevail and that the law should be applied to all people, whether native or non-native people in this country? In terms of the taking of species and the preservation of stock, this seeming unfairness that is today perceived by Canadians—and I think justifiably so, not only at Burnt Church but in issues involving native communities right across this land. Two different laws apply in this land. In this country, where we believe there is fairness and there should be equality in the application of the law, would you agree that the Ministry of Fisheries and Oceans would support that view that one law should apply to all?
Mr. Jack Stagg: In terms of how we deal with our enforcement issues, as a department we believe we enforce fairly. Again, in response to Mr. Cummins' earlier question about us not enforcing sufficiently, there are many Canadians I think who would say we are enforcing too much in an area like Burnt Church. It's a very difficult situation, a very delicate situation. We've tried to do the best we can to be even-handed. I think we have done that, and I think where the law is challenged, the minister has retained the right to regulate, and in fact he's made that case often. I think the way in which we've gone about this has been to be as fair as we possibly can be.
• 1010
So in terms of dealing
fairly between native and non-native, I think we have
done that, and we've demonstrated that time and again.
Mr. Paul Steckle: But firing shots is an illegal activity in this country. Would it not be in the interest of those who are out on the waters to find out where the shots came from and whether they were fired by non-native or native people and have those people brought to justice? Is there an effort being made to find out what happened? Are we running every time a shot is fired? That's not the way we engage in a resolution of issues. We have to try to resolve issues as diplomatically as we can, consulting each other and coming to some conclusions. But simply running away from a shot is not the way we resolve this problem.
Mr. Jack Stagg: I would like to make two points. One is that every one of those incidents, as I understand it, is being fully investigated by the RCMP. Secondly, I think what you may be referring to is that yesterday we did have an enforcement operation on the water where we were taking out traps and shots were fired. Our advice and our command, in fact, to those people who are enforcing on our behalf is not to confront. Don't take your life in your hands for the sake of your enforcement. Leave the area. If there's going to be a confrontation, leave the area, which is exactly what they did. I don't think anybody in this room wants to see anyone on either side of this dispute hurt. So we take the prudent approach to this, firstly, and, secondly, all of those instances we know of are being actively investigated, I'm told, by the RCMP.
Mr. Paul Steckle: But if we take it to the next step, once we have established that we are going to run every time there is a shot fired, is this how we're going to govern our sovereignty over our waters, by allowing someone every morning or every evening to shoot a few rounds across the bow of some boat out there?
Mr. Jack Stagg: All of us regret that there are firearms involved in this situation. There obviously are. There have been several instances. Again, I think we have to leave the enforcement and the investigation of that to the law authorities, the RCMP, who I understand are doing their best to investigate each one of these incidences and to stop them.
The Chair: Mr. Keddy.
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have a couple of questions. A number of points have been raised, and it's difficult to know where to start.
I think I would like to start with a statement. You've just made the statement, Mr. Stagg, that many Canadians would say there's too much enforcement on the water. But I don't know of one fisherman who would say there's too much enforcement on the water. They would say that the enforcement definitely has not been even-handed and fairly applied. I understand where you're coming from, and I have a certain amount of respect for what you are saying.
But the other issue that has not been raised here is the number of enforcement officers. Mr. Easter just touched on it lightly. To my knowledge—and I would like to know if it can be confirmed—at least six from southwest Nova Scotia will not be coming back next year. They will take early retirement, or they have already quit. I understand that's probably prevalent throughout the Maritimes. These guys just don't get paid for this type of activity and putting their lives at risk every day, and it's going to be a serious problem. We didn't have an increase in enforcement last year in the budget. I'd like a short answer, if I can get it. Is that true? If so, how many enforcement officers do you think you will lose?
Mr. Jack Stagg: David.
Mr. David Bevan: We actually did have an increase for enforcement in the budget. A number of steps have been taken to deal with enforcement—
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Excuse me, you had an increase in money, an allocation, but you increased by one officer.
Mr. David Bevan: I'm just looking at it on a local level. People come and go, obviously. People retire, and people are replaced. When you look at it very locally, there may be short-term drops, and then people are replaced. We have 48 officers coming on for training this fall. We have had very large intakes of officers over the course of the last few years. I don't have the numbers with me, but we have actually increased the complement across the country.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: I would appreciate it if you could get those numbers for the committee. That would be excellent.
• 1015
The other thing you talked about was capacity building
with first nations and the whole consultative process
of how you're going to look at quota. I know we
have processes out there already for the commercial
fisheries, and I would expect that with any quota, or
extension of quota or additional quota, involving
first nations they would become part of the process,
since they are already in the commercial fishery, and not
have a completely separate consultative
process.
Mr. Jack Stagg: We haven't settled, sir, on just exactly how that will be resolved or set up in the end. The bottom line is that we want to make sure first nations have a much greater say in the consultative process than they do now. I don't know how that will be structured in the end.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Two points need to be made. From your own admission—and I respect the fact that it's difficult to trace stolen goods, especially lobster or lumber, but at the same time, prior to the Marshall decision coming down in 1999, you guys conducted a sting operation in St. Mary's Bay. You trailed lobsters through organized crime, you trailed lobsters to Quebec, and you trailed lobsters to the state of Maine. These things are being moved by tractor-trailers, refrigerated containers. This is not rocket science. Your own enforcement officers on the ground were involved in that, and you're saying you can't lay charges for illegal lobsters? If I caught a couple of pots of illegal lobsters tomorrow, I'd be charged the next morning.
Mr. Jack Stagg: The fact that we've closed the fishery in Miramichi Bay may make it easier for us to trace those lobsters. But as David has said, it's a very difficult task to trace them down and make it stick.
The Chair: One final question.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: On additional quota and capacity building through the agreements, can you confirm how much was involved in D.B. Kenney's groundfish quota, how many million pounds? Was it 1.2 million, 2.6 million? You hear different numbers everywhere.
Mr. Jack Stagg: No, but we'll get that for you.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: I appreciate it. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Keddy.
Back to Mr. Cummins.
Mr. John Cummins: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Stagg, a couple of times now you've explained the lack of enforcement because you've avoided confrontation, and you suggest that most Canadians agree. I'm of the strong opinion, and I think most people are, that DFO's mandate is not conservation by opinion poll. I think most people would think the department's mandate is to conserve the resource. With the documents I have here—and I think you would agree—the resource in Miramichi Bay is being depleted and there should be concern for conservation. But would you not agree, Mr. Stagg, that it should not be conservation by opinion poll but rather do the job that the minister has a constitutional mandate to do?
Mr. Jack Stagg: We have a job to look after the resource and to regulate the fishery, there's no question. The point I made about Canadians is that there are many who would say we have enforced too much. I know there are those Canadians who would say the resource should be conserved to a point where it shouldn't matter what the consequences of enforcement are. We don't happen to agree with that.
Mr. John Cummins: Yes, and I think the issue is that the minister, the department—we can blame the minister—let the situation get out of hand. You didn't nip it in the bud and you let it get out of hand. But the fact of the matter is, as was suggested by my colleague down the way here a few minutes ago, the fishery that's ongoing in Miramichi Bay is a section 35 fishery, a fishery for food, social, and ceremonial purposes, and those fish are not to be sold. I've heard this mantra from you and others in the department, and it's almost like getting the answering machine on the telephone: it's a tough job to track these fish for sale, and so on.
I've done it, Mr. Stagg. I'm sure you're aware that two years ago last August, as an example, I videotaped an illegal fishery on the Fraser River and tracked the fish down to the selling point, across the American border into Bellingham, Washington. The National Marine Fisheries Service was there. A couple of days later they nabbed the guy and confiscated $18,000 U.S. and the fish. No charges were laid in the U.S and no charges have yet been laid in Canada. I gave you your case. It's not a difficult job to track salmon. I'd suggest to you that if you want, I'll come down and show you how to do it with lobster.
• 1020
Mr. Jack Stagg: It may not be difficult to track, sir, but it's awfully difficult to get a prosecution.
Mr. John Cummins: Then how many times have you recommended to the minister that the law be changed to allow for the prosecution of those people who would break the law and endanger the resource? How many times have you made the recommendation to the minister that somehow the law needs to be changed to allow you to do your job?
Mr. Jack Stagg: We wish, sir, that it was easier to get those prosecutions. It would make our enforcement and our job generally an awful lot easier, but it's not the case.
Mr. John Cummins: What's the big difficulty?
Mr. David Bevan: The challenge is that you must show beyond a reasonable doubt that there was an illegal fish, that is to say the lobster was caught illegally and that lobster was sold illegally. With regard to catching illegally within a closed area, fine, we can deal with that one on the water, as we have done. We can deal with it at the wharf. But when you're looking at demonstrating that the sale is illegal, if there's any excuse whatsoever, any open fishery, any food fishery, any reason somebody might have a lobster in their possession legally, you have to demonstrate that specific lobster was caught illegally. Then you have to demonstrate that there was a commercial transaction. We've tracked lobsters that were marked from the water right through to a processing plant, and we've demonstrated that there was a transaction of some nature between the person and the plant. That was not enough, because the excuse used was that he was getting food fish frozen for later use. You have actually to show a transfer of money, and people don't do that out in the open. So it becomes extremely difficult.
That means it takes forensic audits, as was done in the southwest Nova Scotia issue. You need to track people over a period of several transactions and demonstrate through forensic audits that there has been a commercial activity undertaken with lobsters that are from a closed area. Again, it's easy to get prima facie evidence, but that's not what works in a court of law. You must prove beyond a reasonable doubt. That is more difficult to do given the case law that has occurred in New Brunswick in particular and P.E.I. as well.
The Chair: This will be your last question, John, and I'm being generous.
Mr. John Cummins: Part of the point as well is that not only have you not utilized the law and recommended changes the way you should if you can't do your job, but also the amounts you allow in the food fishery are beyond all reason. In fact, that's where the impetus, if you will, or the problem with the sale of food fish arises. You allow huge amounts of food fish to be caught, far more than any person is ever going to want to eat, and then you wonder and wring your hands when the stuff is being sold. There's no rationale here. Set reasonable limits and perhaps there wouldn't be the volume of fish or lobster on the market. Do you not agree?
Mr. Jack Stagg: In the case of Burnt Church this year, as you know, sir, we did in fact attempt to limit the amount of food fish that was to be caught. We do that consistent with the rest of the lobster fishery; that is, we do it by limiting the number of traps. We set the limit at about 40, which would have produced approximately 30 pounds of lobster per individual in the community. Alternatively, we also provided additional access or opportunities in the commercial fishery in the spring. But, as came out earlier on here, the commercial opportunity was not taken up in the spring, and we have a major disagreement with Burnt Church over the amount that's acceptable in terms of a food, social, and ceremonial fishery in the fall.
The Chair: Nancy.
Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Thank you.
Of the bands that have signed agreements right now, who designed the fishing management plan for those operations?
• 1025
Mr. Jack Stagg: For those operations the fish management plan was worked out between ourselves and the community itself. It was a cooperative effort between our negotiator, our spokesperson, and the band itself. So when we signed an agreement, there was an agreement not to fish, essentially, outside that agreement, which became the plan.
Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: So all agreements had to contain a fishing management plan before they would be finalized.
Mr. Jack Stagg: The agreement itself, you could say, constituted a fish management plan for that community.
Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: In some of our earlier committee work we talked about traditional knowledge being accepted more as part of the scientific knowledge that most of the plans are based on. We talked about plans being studied by peers, with different scientists looking at them and saying yes, they are viable. But in one of the reports we did, especially the Nunavut report, we talked about how the traditional knowledge should be incorporated into as many plans as possible and that we should combine the two, not just traditional knowledge but also the knowledge of the fishermen, because they've been living the fishery and have all that experience, which we felt hasn't been taken into consideration. We were basing everything strictly on science, but we felt there should be an opportunity for the knowledge of the fishermen and scientific knowledge to be meshed together to make a sound plan. I just wondered how much of that was part of the fishing plan offered by Burnt Church and whether the reason for saying that it's not biologically sustainable was based strictly on scientific evidence.
Mr. Jack Stagg: This is not a plan that we developed jointly with the first nation community in any way. This is a plan that was developed by the first nation community itself, and it was ratified by the chief and council and the community in August, I think. We don't know how much traditional first nation knowledge went into the plan. We don't know how the plan was constructed. We were faced with the plan itself once it was established and ratified by the community.
In the case of other communities where we do have agreement, we spent a fair bit of time talking about sustainability of the resource and what the involvement of the first nation should be in a variety of species fisheries. So that kind of dialogue happened. When we did get agreement, we were able to sit down and sort through first nation involvement in various closed fisheries.
But it didn't happen at Burnt Church in part because we were sent a finished document that had the community support before we even had a chance at the dialogue.
Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: It was based on scientific evidence and you felt it wasn't a sustainable plan.
Mr. Jack Stagg: That's right.
Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: The other question I wanted to ask was, I know there was a lot of difficulty coming to any middle ground with the negotiations with Mr. Rae, but was there any effort made to involve some of the aboriginal people that are already in these signed agreements and to have them come and talk to people at Burnt Church to say, this is what's happening in our community? Do you think there's any way we could use some of the people who are already in the signed agreements and, as you say, seeing some success in their community, have them come and talk to the Burnt Church Band?
Mr. Jack Stagg: I know that in one instance a number of chiefs from other communities where we did get agreements did visit Burnt Church and talk to the leadership there. We weren't privy to that discussion at all. I do know that Burnt Church has talked to other members of first nation communities in the Maritimes, some of whom have signed agreements with us. I do know that they had a discussion with those people, but as to the details of that discussion and what came out of it, I don't know.
• 1030
The Chair: Thank you, Nancy.
Mr. Bernier, and then Mr. Stoffer.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier: We have only five minutes remaining. I would like to continue in the same vein as Ms. Karetak-Lindell, who has asked some rather astute questions.
How do we settle a dispute between two groups? Perhaps my earlier question wasn't clear, but I'd like you to recall the questions that Nancy just asked. On one side, we have the Burnt Church nation. To my knowledge, when it comes to relations with aboriginal communities, each separate community is sovereign and is free to make decisions that differ from those arrived at by other communities. They cannot be influenced by our appealing to the positions taken by other communities. Members of the Burnt Church nation are firmly convinced that their management plan is a sound one. I don't intend to assess the validity of the plan at this time, but that's their perception.
As DFO representatives, you can avail yourself of the services of biologists. Further to your analysis, you claim that DFO's management plan is better. Had you stated the contrary, we would have been surprised, to say the least.
Further to Nancy's question, I'd like to know this: how could this dispute be resolved in an impartial manner? We hear mention of sovereignty. Some argue that they don't want to get dragged into this game, because they don't want to have to say that two sets of rules apply. However, the fact remains that this community enjoys certain rights pursuant to the 1760 treaties which recognized the presence of the British government and of the representative or chief of the Burnt Church nation.
Would it be possible to set up an impartial committee of experts, one that would not necessarily be concerned about the interests of either DFO or Burnt Church, to scientifically evaluate the respective management plans? As I see it, the truth isn't always black or white. Is this a viable option?
The decision to call a halt to the fishing has been made and I won't get into that at this time. What's done is done and we must move on. I'm looking to what's going to happen next spring. If no action is taken and the lines of communication are not kept open, there is nothing stopping the Burnt Church nation from repeating its actions for a third summer. In other words, does DFO have a plan B? I'm proposing that an impartial committee be struck. However, do we have other options?
[English]
Mr. Jack Stagg: I think you make some very good points, and we are concerned about where this goes from here and what we will face again later in the fall and into next year's fishery.
We tried, as I mentioned earlier, to meet, to talk about the plan. Once the plan was sent in to us, we said there were aspects of that plan that we thought we could talk about. We wanted to sit down with the first nation's council and representatives and go through that plan to see basically what would be good for them and the resource and ourselves and the non-native commercial fishermen and what would be difficult for us.
The difficulty we had was that there was a reluctance on the first nation's part to sit down and talk about the plan. We were told essentially, I think, that that was the plan. The first nation had that plan. They'd worked hard on it. The community had ratified it and that was the way in which they felt they should fish. It was quite a hard and difficult position.
I think consistently through time, in the last several weeks, we have asked on several occasions to sit down and talk about the plan.
I think your idea of setting up a neutral group or a neutral committee... we had that in a sense with Mr. Rae, who was chosen by the first nation community to mediate the situation. Mr. Rae spoke at length, I can tell you, with us, with the first nation community, and with the non-native commercial fishers about how we should proceed, and he could not get a consensus at all on how we should go about doing this. It's a very difficult problem. We're concerned that we have to deal with this community in the longer term, and we're worried about how we go about doing that.
• 1035
But I think equally importantly we're worried about
the relationship between the non-native people and the
native people in that community. We're here in Ottawa
and we see these problems, and sometimes they come and
go, but those people have to live beside each other for
a long time and cooperate in a whole variety of ways,
not just fishing. If we're to find a way of doing this
and if we're to find a way toward peace, we have to
make sure those people who are locally engaged in
the issues are involved and take some comfort in a
longer-term solution. We don't know how to go about
doing this right now, but we are sensitive to it. We
are sensitive to the future, and we have said that we
will remain open in terms of that dialogue.
Again, we're ever hopeful that at some point we're going to be able to sit down and deal with this in a way that makes sense locally and to us and to the resource. That's all I can say at this point. We remain hopeful that a longer-term peaceful solution to this will be found.
The Chair: Very, very short, Mr. Bernier.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier: I hope we can come back to this. It was my understanding that Mr. Rae had already raised the issue. Has either the minister or DFO made a formal offer with a view to settling the dispute? Has he said: "I represent the people of Canada and you, as Chief, represent the Burnt Church nation, and we disagree"? Has DFO proposed the creation of an impartial committee? Have we discussed with the Chief the fact that there is disagreement and that the two management plans conflict, and have we asked him to suggest something? Has it been acknowledged that neither of the plans currently on the table is acceptable to the other party? I admire the fact that you have given some thought to the communities that must co-exist, because they are the ones who must suffer the consequences until such time as the impasse is resolved, and resolved it must be as soon as possible. In matters of diplomacy, someone always has to make the first move.
[English]
The Chair: Make it short, Yvan, short.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier: I have nothing further to say, Mr. Chairman.
[English]
Mr. Jack Stagg: Even before the mediation we suggested to the community that we establish a protocol by which we could settle upon a set number of traps that would be for a kind of cooling off period, and then we would negotiate something that would be satisfactory to all the parties down there for the rest of the fishing season in the fall, the food fishing season. That fell apart. There wasn't agreement. I know when Mr. Rae came in, what he tried to do basically was to get some commitment by the community for a reduction in fishing effort in order to bring the parties closer together so that the non-native commercial fishers in the area could be reasonably comforted that the resource wasn't being harmed for the next year's spring fishery. But that failed.
There was give and take, I think, amongst all the parties. I think Mr. Rae said publicly that the non-native commercial fishermen were very helpful in the negotiations and the talks he held. But, unfortunately, we could not find common ground amongst all the people who were at the table at the time. It was too bad. We felt there was a real opportunity to do that. But again, there was goodwill on the part of many people at the table, and no consensus was able to be reached. One can only remain hopeful that in the future we can find a way of doing that. But it's not now.
The Chair: But, Mr. Stagg—maybe I should be careful in saying this, but it's what I think, so I'll say it—can you ever have agreement at the table when some players in this system want to pick just the parts of the Supreme Court decision they agree with and don't want to recognize those parts they disagree with? Isn't that part of the problem?
Mr. Jack Stagg: I think there are a lot of interpretations of what the Supreme Court set out there, and I won't say that those people don't believe that strongly as to what the court decision's import is. Burnt Church believes, I think, strongly in an interpretation perhaps much different from what yours or mine might be. That's not to say that they don't hold those views any less strongly than you or I.
• 1040
Mr. John Cummins: Bonnie and Clyde felt strongly that they had a right to the bank's money, too, you know.
The Chair: Go ahead, Mr. Stagg.
Mr. Jack Stagg: So we've got a difficult situation, where in fact you get some very, very strongly held views on a legal case that speaks to me in one way and you in one way and others in another. They hold this very strongly, and they believe they have rights they can prosecute in a way in which they are comfortable with doing.
The Chair: I do want to say before I go to Mr. Stoffer that I really do think that the Maritime Fishermen's Union leadership should be commended. I've been in that area, and there is no question that the membership of the MFU wanted to get in the water and stop what they felt was an illegal fishery. I think the leadership tried to take the avenue of settling this by way of discussion rather than having basically a war on the water. I think they should be commended for that.
Also, regardless of what Mr. Cummins said in the beginning, I do believe that Jim Jones deserves to be recognized and thanked for his efforts on behalf of the department as well. I think he spent many days and many nights on this issue trying to resolve it as best he could, and I think he should be appreciated for that.
Mr. John Cummins: I don't think I said anything to the contrary. I was referencing the other Jim Jones.
The Chair: Okay, all right. Well, we wouldn't want it on the record the wrong way. I'm glad you clarified that, John.
Mr. Stoffer.
Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
We all know that after the Marshall decision a meeting was held between some members of the corporate sector and DFO regarding the corporate sector's questioning of the fact that the decision will only apply within the three-mile limit, and anything off that will not happen. Mr. Chamut has indicated that this meeting did indeed take place.
In terms of your new cooperative co-management community-based fisheries that you're working towards, which you had indicated earlier, is the corporate sector in any way involved in the new management regime with aboriginal and non-aboriginal coastal communities?
Mr. Jack Stagg: I don't think so, because we haven't started setting it up. We hope to get all the players engaged. A future management regime of the fishery is not going to work unless all the players are basically there. So my sense is that we'll need to get everybody engaged in the longer term.
Mr. Peter Stoffer: So the corporate sector, the major players, like Polar, like Highliner, like FPI, will be part of the new regime when this does take place. Is that correct?
Mr. Jack Stagg: We would want to see all those people who have an interest in the fishery play a role in terms of providing us with advice.
Mr. Peter Stoffer: Very good. The reason why so many small independent fishermen are so nervous and so worried is because the lobster fishery is the last great independent fishery happening. From DFO's policy since the expansion of the 200-mile limit we've seen fish stocks go down, down, down, and we've seen oil and gas exploration go and the fear of their livelihood going out the window.
We get reports now from Newfoundland and Quebec that turbot stocks are going down and the catches are very small compared to what they were catching a couple of years ago.
We all know that fishing is about money. That's what it boils down to. Whether it's your aboriginal right, whether it's your historical right and the fact that my grandfather fished, I fished, etc., etc., it really boils down to money.
If and when the spring fishery starts in Atlantic Canada and the non-aboriginal group goes out and starts fishing and notices that their catches are way down, is the government prepared or are they planning to compensate them in a similar TAGS program that was happening in the groundfish fishery?
Mr. Jack Stagg: No, I don't know of any plan for compensation. We try to run the fishery to a sustainable fishery, not a declining fishery. We work hard at doing that.
There is a whole variety of factors that have an impact on fisheries. One could argue, for instance, the decline in the cod fishery had five or six different factors that contributed towards it.
No, we haven't planned on any compensation scheme. Again, we try to manage the fisheries in such a way that they're sustainable. We don't manage fisheries towards subsidies.
• 1045
Mr. Peter Stoffer: Okay.
I considered what Mr. Nault had done when he went down to Burnt Church a major slap in the face to aboriginal people across the country. I've spoken to many of them, and they considered his inaction to discuss with the community at that time, when they were all outside wanting him to speak to them, because either the proper protocol wasn't followed or whatever, really a slap in the face to aboriginal people, coming from the minister for aboriginal and northern affairs.
We know that Mr. Dhaliwal is going down to Nova Scotia today. We know that his office in Vancouver, I believe, is either occupied now or about to be occupied by aboriginal youth. Do you think it would be in the best interests of the government, or of negotiations, if Mr. Dhaliwal himself went to either Indian Brook or Burnt Church just to discuss this issue over a cup of coffee, just to see where each side is, sort of a mano-a-mano type of thing?
Mr. Jack Stagg: I spoke to him yesterday about his trip down. I think he feels very strongly that while there's any illegal fishing going on by the community, he would prefer not to meet with them. I think what he said is that he would meet with the community once any illegal fishing was over.
Mr. Peter Stoffer: Which means that he'll probably meet with them October 8, because October 7 they're finished anyway.
Mr. Jack Stagg: I don't know that.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Stoffer.
Mr. Keddy.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: I have a couple of questions on maybe just a bit of a take on the question just asked about the future of the management regime.
Certainly we've had a number of presentations and a lot of lobbying going on by the commercial fishery to try to become part of any future and present management regime, and in particular, any management regime that incorporates an aboriginal fishery.
What's your take on the whole principle of adjacency in the aboriginal fishery? Has there been any attempt to base it upon the traditional Mi'kmaq hunting and fishing territories? They certainly have divided Atlantic Canada into traditional territories. They're ignoring those when you allow the Shubenacadie Band to fish in St. Mary's Bay—completely ignoring them.
So if you're going to take what you like out of every decision or take what you like out of every judgment and ignore what you don't like, what's the possibility of applying the principle of adjacency and applying the principle of the Mi'kmaq traditional territories to any future plan?
Mr. Jack Stagg: My understanding is that while the court case noted that the treaty right to fish is local, the court quite unambiguously, I think, took a fairly expansive view regarding commercially fished species. I'm told that paragraph 21 of the clarification—this is the one that was put out on November 17—specifically mentioned salmon, crab, cod, and lobster fishery.
When we started providing access and purchasing access and transferring access to first nations communities this year, we had hoped we could more or less try to maintain the so-called principle of adjacency as best we could. But when we're faced with the reality in the lobster fishery that the fisheries that are adjacent are again the small operations fishery, and very competitive, I think we realized fairly soon that if we were to get sufficient access for first nations, it couldn't all be gotten immediately adjacent. So we tried in fact to get as much of that access adjacent, but we also recognized that we weren't going to be able to fill the moderate livelihood provision and do that.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: I appreciate that answer.
I have another question on a slightly different issue, but certainly on enforcement. By your own admission, there was enforcement that took place on August 13 and 14 and on August 21 and 22. What I find interesting is that each of these dates has a week between them where there was no enforcement whatsoever. Another enforcement action took place on August 28 and 29, and then the next enforcement took place September 21 and 22. So really you had a full three weeks and nearly three and a half or four weeks of absolutely no enforcement at all—in particular, in Miramichi Bay. How do you defend that?
• 1050
Mr. Jack Stagg: What we were trying to do at that time, I guess, is put an extra effort on to try to get an agreement to bring the parties together. There was some discussion much earlier, before Mr. Rae was appointed, that we would look towards a mediation process. We began talking about different models of negotiation or settlement instruments we could use. We felt that while we were actively engaged to try to get some work done towards an agreement, we would not enforce, in order to get some agreement on how we would proceed. We were unable to do that, as you know, and went in and did an enforcement.
The other thing is that we have to judge... when we're doing an enforcement, it's easy to say from Ottawa that you send a bunch of people in, in boats, to enforce. This is a difficult thing to do. It's potentially confrontational. We felt that in the first instance we should be negotiating rather than constantly enforcing. We've tried to do that. We've tried to keep the balance between enforcement and negotiations. Again, many people may disagree with the level of enforcement, or the lack of it, I guess, in some cases, but we did our best to try to walk that line.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Final question. You've spent $122 million on the implementation of Marshall so far—$160 million has been put aside. Yet you haven't given us a clear indication of how much additional money we spent on enforcement, never mind what we put into Marshall.
Mr. Jack Stagg: We're not reluctant to do that. I don't think we have the sums together as to what additional money we would have put into enforcement. Enforcement right now, as you know, Mr. Keddy, is an ongoing affair.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Certainly we have coast guard boats that are laid up now—in the wintertime—that aren't patrolling the water. It becomes a safety issue for anyone fishing in the winter fishery. We have buoys, we have navigational aids that are disappearing. We have additional costs in the fishery here on one side and we have additional costs on enforcement, and yet we're putting lives at risk by continuing to cut in other areas, under your mandate and under the minister's mandate. How do we balance that? How do we justify it?
Mr. Jack Stagg: Again, we're going to get you some numbers on enforcement.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: I need them, thanks.
Mr. Jack Stagg: We promised those earlier on and we'll get those for you.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Stagg.
Mr. Cummins, keep it as short as you can, and then Mr. Bernier, and then we'll close.
Mr. John Cummins: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have to bring you to heel on this issue of local rights, Mr. Stagg. At the Shubenacadie injunction, which was in Halifax, with a decision rendered here a week or two ago, the government argued, and I'm quoting from the judgment, the judge's decision, that:
He quotes Marshall 2. Then he says:
—and it is obviously the law; it's the Supreme Court speaking—
So your comments, Mr. Stagg, are simply wrong. But you need not comment on that; I've corrected the record.
Now my question—
The Chair: I'll give Mr. Stagg an opportunity to respond.
Mr. John Cummins: Are you going to extend my time?
The Chair: No. You implied—
Mr. John Cummins: Who gets the last word, Mr. Chairman, me or the witness?
The Chair: The witness has an opportunity to respond and I'll give him the opportunity to respond.
Mr. John Cummins: I'm responding to the witness.
The Chair: All right. I'm going to let the witness counter-respond, if you want to call it that.
Mr. Stagg.
Mr. John Cummins: That doesn't come out of my time then.
Mr. Jack Stagg: I think our position is clear on the business about whether or not it can be local, and I tried to explain how we dealt with that.
Mr. John Cummins: Your position is not clear, Mr. Stagg. It's contrary to the Department of Justice—
The Chair: Give Mr. Stagg—
Mr. John Cummins: It is contrary to what the Department of Justice argued in the—
The Chair: John, just hold on. There are certainly different opinions here.
Mr. Stagg, if you could respond, we'll come back to it.
Mr. Jack Stagg: Our interpretation of the judgment in fact is that while the judgment did mention local benefits, the benefits could be local. I think your position, as I understand it, Mr. Cummins, is that each of the communities would have to prove they had a traditional fishery in and around the area where they wanted to fish in order to do any fishing at all. We think that's much too restrictive and much too narrow for that situation.
• 1055
Mr. John Cummins: Mr. Stagg, again from the proceedings, paragraph 78:
—that's the Shubenacadie Band—
End of case.
Now, to get to my questions. This statement was made under oath by a Department of Fisheries and Oceans science branch biologist, Marc Lanteigne. I'm sorry if I mispronounced his name.
Mr. Jack Stagg: Marc Lanteigne is a spokesperson. He's not a scientist.
Mr. John Cummins: Excuse me, Mr. Stagg, he introduces himself here and says “I am a fisheries biologist with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Science Branch”.
In the Barlow case, Mr. Hare, who is the biologist for the natives in both the Marshall and the Barlow case, stated, and I quote from the court document:
Mr. Lanteigne says:
Do you still believe that statement, which was made under oath?
Mr. Jack Stagg: I'm going to turn this over to Mr. Powles.
I do apologize. We do have two Lanteignes and two Marcs. One is André-Marc and the other is Marc.
Mr. John Cummins: Fine. Do you agree with that statement, then, Mr. Stagg, or were you engaged in another conversation? I can repeat it if you were.
The Chair: Mr. Powles is going to answer.
Mr. Howard Powles: The scientific assessments we have indicate that statement of Marc Lanteigne is correct, that any increase in effort at this time does go against the conservation objectives. The current conservation objective, which is in a four-year plan, that the then minister established in 1998 was to reduce the exploitation intensity in all areas of Atlantic Canada.
Mr. John Cummins: Thank you.
Jim Jones, the Regional Director General, Gulf Fisheries Management Region, who I hold in high regard, in a letter to Chief Dedam and councillors on September 21, suggests there were tags issued to the Burnt Church First Nation. I'll quote from his letter. He said:
So the trap tags were returned. That says to me that if the trap tags were returned right from the get-go, there were no legal traps in the water. Would you not concur? If there were no legal traps, why didn't you just haul it in in the beginning before this thing got to be the mess it is?
Mr. Jack Stagg: What happened, Mr. Chairman, is that after the tags were returned, individual members from the community came forward asking for those tags, and in fact we did allocate the 40 tags to Burnt Church community members.
Mr. John Cummins: Mr. Chairman, I—
The Chair: This is a supplementary and the last one.
Mr. John Cummins: I'm not certain in my own mind—and maybe it's for purists like you and me to argue at some other point, Mr. Stagg—whether or not the minister has the ability to delegate the authority to issue licences to a band or anybody else. That being said, DFO did in fact issue licences to individuals, not to the community, and the issuing of those licences to individuals, which Mr. Jones also mentions in that letter, seems to me to be contrary to policy, is it not?
Mr. Jack Stagg: These were tags from a communal licence.
Mr. John Cummins: But didn't the minister give the authority to issue those tags to the band? Isn't it the process that if there are communal licences issued or communal tags, they're given to the chief or some other leader within the community, and then they issue them to the community, and it's not the department that has been issuing those?
The Chair: Mr. Alexander.
• 1100
Mr. Michel Alexander (Acting Director General, Aboriginal Policy and Governance, Fisheries and Oceans Canada): In the first instance the band did return the tags to the DFO officers. The band was then advised that we were proposing to issue them to community members on a first come, first served basis, and the community, if it wished to refuse that approach, was given the opportunity to do so. It did not, and therefore the tags were issued in accordance with the proposal that was made to the band, thereby respecting the communal nature of the licence.
The Chair: Mr. Bernier, as quick as possible, and then Mr. Stoffer.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier: I have a question on an entirely different subject and I don't know if any of the witnesses can answer it. If they cannot supply an answer this morning, perhaps they could forward one by mail. I would like to know which kind of fishing or shellfish licences native groups currently have. I'm from the Gaspé region and to my knowledge, native groups in the Gaspé have lobster and shrimp licences.
However, I do know that they were allocated a temporary crab quota this year. Earlier, I heard that they had received approximately $20 million to purchase crab fishing licences. I'm not certain that I heard correctly. If I did, I'd like to know for what zone these licenses were issued and if negotiations will take place for other species of fish, in relation to what you will be negotiating in phase 2 of the Marshall decision. I'd like the fishers in my riding to know what the future holds in store for them.
[English]
The Acting Chair (Mr. Paul Steckle): Mr. Stagg.
Mr. Jack Stagg: We have posted on the Internet the summary of each agreement we have with each community. It outlines both the agreement and the fish species to be fished under that agreement. We can make those available to you. That's not a problem at all.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier: When you say that $20 million was made available to purchase crab fishing licences, exactly what region was targeted?
[English]
Mr. Jack Stagg: These were not licences that were purchased. This was the purchase of a quantity this year to get first nations fishers into the shrimp fishery. So these were not specific licences purchased. These were quantities made available for a price from the existing fishery.
The Acting Chair (Mr. Paul Steckle): Mr. Bernier, a short question.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier: No, I'll pass.
[English]
The Acting Chair (Mr. Paul Steckle): Mr. Stoffer, please.
Mr. Peter Stoffer: I have just a quick statement. We've sat here and talked about non-aboriginals and aboriginals accessing the resource and government doing the right thing or not doing the right thing, but no one has really talked about the resource in terms of itself as an entity. Without the resource we wouldn't be here discussing this. So I just want to tell everyone who's listening on both sides of the equation that if they don't look at the resource for the future and catching it in a sustainable manner, this conversation will end very quickly on its own.
Thank you.
The Chair: Mr. Keddy.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Just a point of clarification, if you would, Mr. Stagg. Maybe you don't have the answer to this, but we could perhaps find it out. A lot of the criticism of the implementation of Marshall has been that there wasn't a clear government plan. It was a new decision and it did catch people unawares, but there was no plan coming into it and no plan going out of it. It has been interesting to finally hear the term “phase two” and that there has been a phase one and there's a phase two, because that kind of indicates that there was some type of long-term plan. I wonder when the term “phase two” started to be used. I haven't heard it before and it's interesting.
Mr. Jack Stagg: I think we knew right away that our immediate response over this past year would be an interim approach. I think as soon as we began planning how we would go about getting agreements with first nations over the winter and the early spring, we knew this was going to be a first approach. So there had to be something that followed, step two or phase two or something. We probably began using that term an awful lot earlier than it was used here.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Thank you.
The Chair: Mr. Cummins, this will be your last question.
Mr. John Cummins: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have two quickies—
The Chair: We'll see.
Mr. John Cummins: —and a request.
• 1105
Mr. Alexander, in a letter to Mr. Chamut on April 5,
2000, in response to the alliance position paper on
DFO's Marshal response, you state—
Mr. Gerald Keddy: That would be the Fisheries Alliance, right, not the Canadian Alliance.
Mr. John Cummins: That's correct, the Fisheries Alliance, yes.
You state: “Not surprisingly, the paper also calls for a reduction in commercial fishing operating under the guise of a food fishery.” Were you suggesting that you in fact believe that the food fishery operates as a commercial fishery?
Mr. Michel Alexander: Well, there was a very substantial fishery that was proceeding in that bay.
Mr. John Cummins: Thank you.
Has the catch limit in Malpeque Bay been achieved? And if so, how much over the limit are we today?
Mr. Michel Alexander: David, do you know?
The Chair: David, do you have a number?
Mr. David Bevan: No, I don't have a number. I think we'll have to get that one. I'll be in touch with the regional people. My understanding is it wasn't exceeded, but I'll have to take your comments into consideration and go back to the region on that.
Mr. John Cummins: I have one last request, for some documents for the committee, Mr. Chair.
I wonder if you could provide us with copies of the treaties relating to this Marshall decision and also a list of the bands they apply to. For example, I do believe that there's some question as to whether or not the treaty that is referenced there even applies to the Shubenacadie Band. Would you be able to do that—provide us with copies of the treaties and the bands they apply to, so that we would have a better understanding of...
Mr. Jack Stagg: Are you looking for the interim agreements, or copies—
Mr. John Cummins: No, I've got the interim agreements. I'm looking for the original treaties, the 1760 treaties, and your assessment. That's easy to come by. It has to be.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Get it from the library.
Mr. John Cummins: But what's more pertinent is your view of the bands they apply to today.
Mr. Jack Stagg: Yes. We have a list that we gave out this morning on whom we are negotiating with—
Mr. John Cummins: I understand that.
Mr. Jack Stagg: —and those are the ones we believe apply or have application under the treaties. But we will get a copy of the treaties for you.
The Chair: Okay.
Mr. John Cummins: And the bands they apply to.
The Chair: Okay. Just before we close, I have one more housekeeping thing.
One other point I wanted to raise relates to fisheries management in the Atlantic, in part related to the Marshall decision, Mr. Stagg. I note in our local paper today the headlines on the front page said “DFO seizes illegal traps from West Prince area”. I just point out to you that those illegal traps—and they're not native traps—are in fact off the west end of Prince Edward Island, the fall fishery and the spring fishery. The fact of the matter is that some fishermen have been found to have been moving into the spring fishery fishing zone because DFO does not have the enforcement ability on the line. And that's the facts.
I want to come back to what the committee said in our report on Marshall: enforcement, enforcement, enforcement. I would suspect—I've got agreement from the committee on this—that there has to be more money spent on enforcement.
I'll just give you the example on that line. I think it was the Louisbourg that was on the line, which is a former coast guard vessel, which is too big, actually, to police lobster fishing, because they can't get in the shallow waters. So they didn't have a boat they could use. Yet my fishermen tell me, and this comes out of the Big Cove agreement, and I quote:
That's as related to the Marshall agreement.
However, our DFO officers on the west end don't have a vessel that's decent enough to pull lobster traps. To be honest with you, they were up there three weeks ago dragging lobster traps off that line with Zodiacs, coming into shore and taking the traps on shore. It was an embarrassment. The fisheries officers were embarrassed to have to operate in that kind of equipment.
• 1110
So what I'm telling you is there has to be money spent
on the enforcement side totally. And I think that's a
good example.
Anyway, thank you very much, gentlemen, for coming. I know this has not been an easy last several months for DFO and the minister. We certainly thank you for appearing before us today and answering our questions as directly as you could—and there were many. So thank you very much for your participation.
Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Chair?
The Chair: Yes, Peter.
Mr. Peter Stoffer: On your comment about the enforcement, at the environment committee on Thursday, DFO officials admitted that discarding and dumping of groundfish species is still ongoing and a problem. Enforcement needs to apply not just in in-shore waters, but mid-shore and off-shore waters as well.
Thank you.
The Chair: Okay. I'm too easy today.
I have a motion. Due to the fact that the committee in its aquaculture tour on the east coast... It's now been realized that for the hearing in Mont-Joli, in Mr. Bernier's riding, we will need simultaneous translation, and that is going to cost some more money. I have a motion that the chair be authorized to approve a supplementary budget for the east coast trip and present the same to the budget subcommittee. It's to deal with the added cost of the interpretation for Mr. Bernier's area. Do I have a mover?
Mr. Peter Stoffer: I so move.
(Motion agreed to)
The Chair: The meeting is adjourned. Thank you very much.